Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.1.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar, whereby the title suit filed by them under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), as applicable to the State of Haryana, was dismissed; as well as the orders dated 24.11.1983 and 6.2.1985 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra as well as Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, whereby appeal and revision filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order, were dismissed. 2. The petitioners are some of the proprietors of Village Mandi. In the said village, during the consolidation of land holdings in the year 1955- 56 under the Scheme of Consolidation, some land of the village was kept reserved for common purposes of the village, like `Charand, cremation ground, ponds, school, playground, wells, public thorough fares, etc. At that time, two `Charands, one on the South of the village measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marlas to serve the proprietors of the village, who also owned agricultural land in village Lukhi and residing there; and another `Charand measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marlas (comprising in Khewat No.131/127, Khatauni No.242) [which is in dispute in the present writ petition] on the North of the village, for the other proprietors of the village, were kept reserved. The mutation in respect of those `Charands, which, according to the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, vests in the Gram Panchayat, was entered in the name of Gram Panchayat, Mandi vide Mutation entry No.615 dated 10.1.1978. Prior to the said mutation, the name of the proprietors, according to their share, stand existed in the column of ownership, whereas in the column of cultivation, the land was described as `Charand. On the basis of the said entry, when the Gram Panchayat leased out the land for the benefit of the village community, the petitioners filed the title suit under Section 13-A of the Act claiming ownership on the said land and which, according to them, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the said entry, when the Gram Panchayat leased out the land for the benefit of the village community, the petitioners filed the title suit under Section 13-A of the Act claiming ownership on the said land and which, according to them, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was the case of the petitioners that the `Charand in question was reserved during the consolidation from the land of the petitioners, which was purchased by their forefathers about 100 years ago for their exclusive use for their own purpose, i.e., for grazing of their own cattle and the same could not have been used by any other person. It was further contended that in the column of ownership, the name of the petitioners or their ancestors are recorded and the land was never described as Shamilat deh in the column of ownership. Therefore, merely because in the column of cultivation, it was recorded as `Charand, the land cannot be said to have vested in the Gram Panchayat. 3. The said suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat by claiming that during the consolidation the land in dispute was reserved for `Charand for common purposes of the village for grazing the cattle. According to the Sharat- Wazibul-Arz for the year 1955-56 prepared during the consolidation, the land reserved for `Charand was to be used by the proprietors as well as non- proprietors for grazing their cattle. Therefore, it was specifically denied that the `Charand in question was exclusively reserved for grazing the cattle of the proprietors only. Thus, according to the definition of Section 2 (g) of the Act, such land, which was reserved during the consolidation for the common purposes of the village, absolutely vests in the Gram Panchayat. 4. The Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar, after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners while coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute was reserved during the consolidation for `Charand, which is a common purpose and such land falls under the definition of Shamilat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and vests in the Gram Panchayat. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed and the order of the Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar was upheld. Hence, this writ petition. 6. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed and the order of the Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar was upheld. Hence, this writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as documents annexed with the petition and written statement. 7. Undisputedly, at the time of consolidation of holdings of land in village Mandi held in 1955-56, the land in dispute, i.e., measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marlas was reserved as `Charand for grazing the cattle. At that time, two `Charands in the village land were reserved, one comprising of land measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in South of the village and the other measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.131/127, Khatauni No.242 (which is in dispute in the present writ petition), on the North of the village. As per the document Sharat-Wazibul- Arz of village Mandi, which is available on the record as Annexure R2/1 with the written statement filed by respondents No.2 and 9, the `Charand comprising land measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marlas was reserved for proprietors of village Lukhi and the second `Charand comprising land measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marlas (which is in dispute in the present writ petition), was reserved for remaining proprietors of the village. It has also been observed that the Khatas of two `Charands has been prepared separately in which there is no right to proprietors for grazing their cattle in each others `Charand. However, it has been specifically mentioned that non- proprietors can graze their cattle without obstruction. It has also been specifically mentioned that no shareholder shall be competent to bring it under cultivation or his possession. The conditions of Sharat-Wazibul-Arz clearly indicate that the aforesaid land was reserved for `Charand for grazing the cattle in which non-proprietors can also graze their cattle with a specific rider that no shareholder can bring the said land under cultivation or his possession. In the revenue record, since 1955-56 the land in dispute has been recorded as `Charand. However, in the column of ownership,instead of Shamilat deh by Hissa Malkan, it has been recorded in the name of the shareholders of the village with their shares. In the revenue record, since 1955-56 the land in dispute has been recorded as `Charand. However, in the column of ownership,instead of Shamilat deh by Hissa Malkan, it has been recorded in the name of the shareholders of the village with their shares. In my opinion, keeping in view these facts mentioned in the revenue record and the documents available on the record, the Authorities under the Act have rightly come to the conclusion that the land, which was reserved during the consolidation for common purposes of the village, and described as `Charand in the revenue record, rightly vests in the Gram Panchayat in view of Section 2(g) (1) of the Act which provides that the `Shamilat deh includes lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh or Charand excluding abadi deh and such land vests in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in dispute was exclusively used for grazing their cattle by the proprietors as there were no non-proprietors in the village, therefore, the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, neither finds support from the conditions mentioned in the Sharat- Wazibul-Arz, as reproduced above, nor it can be said that there were non- proprietors of the village, therefore, it was reserved for the exclusive use of the proprietors. In the Sharat-Wazibul-Arz for the year 1955-56 prepared during the consolidation proceedings, it has been categorically stated that nonproprietors can graze their cattle without obstruction. This itself indicates that in the village there were non-proprietors, who have been given the right to graze their cattle in the land in dispute. The `Charand, which was reserved for the benefit of the village community, cannot be given restricted meaning while interpreting that the land was reserved in the village only for the proprietors and for none else. The petitioners cannot take any benefit for existence of their names/petitioners ancestors names along with their shares in the column of ownership in the revenue record, i.e., Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 because it is an admitted position that during the consolidation, the land reserved for `Charand was to be used by the proprietors as well as non-proprietors and such land vests in the Gram Panchayat. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.